Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy & Reliability, et al. v. U.S. Department of Interior, et al.
Flocks of California gnatcatchers need no federal protection
The federal government has expanded its reach using the Endangered Species Act to cover spurious "subspecies." The ESA does not define "subspecies" and the Fish and Wildlife Service has offered no definition of its own. Instead, it simply announces when it has determined a "subspecies" to exist and, relying on the subspecies' smaller numbers relati ...
California Sea Urchin Commission v. Combs
Separation of powers at stake in battle over agency otter rule
When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asked Congress for permission in the 1980s to introduce sea otters into Southern California waters, Congress agreed but required protections for lawful fishing activity. In 2012, the Service declared that they would no longer honor the fishing industry protections. On behalf of sea urchin and abalone divers, ...
Brott v. United States
Jury trial sought in rails-to-trails regulatory takings case
Kevin Brott owns land in Muskegon, Michigan. In 1886, a railroad obtained a right-of-way easement across his land. When the railroad ceased operation, the easement terminated and full ownership of the land returned to the owner. The federal government, however, invoking the National Trails System Act and related regulations, nullified Brott's right ...
WildEarth Guardians v. Department of Justice
Unintentional, accidental “take” of species should not be a crime
A radical environmental group challenged the government's interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. Because the ESA's criminal penalties apply only you "knowingly" take a protected species, the government reasonably interprets this to mean that you must know that your actions will cause take and the identity of the species affected. PLF interve ...
Armstrong v. Kadas
Supporting school choice for all – Christians included
PLF represents parents of a child in a faith-based school and an association of Christian schools in a challenge to a regulation implementing Montana's scholarship tax credit law. The regulation forbids religiously affiliated schools from participating in the tax credit program. PLF challenged the regulation as violating the First Amendment's prote ...
Gerawan Farming v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
California unconstitutionally imposes mandatory arbitration for labor contracts in the agricultural sector
Gerawan Farming is a family-owned company that grows grapes and stone fruit in the San Joaquin Valley. Unique in the nation, a California statute compels agricultural employers and their employees' unions to assent to collective bargaining agreements. Rather than being negotiated at arm's length, these agreements' terms are dictated to the parties ...
American Beverage Association v. City and County of San Francisco
San Francisco’s tactics in its war on soda violate the First Amendment
A San Francisco ordinance requires advertisements related to sugar-sweetened beverages to devote 20% of the space to city-specified speech: "WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco." A coalition of beverage trade associations sued ...
State of Wyoming v. Zinke
Bureau of Land Management threatens to end fracking boom
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) purports to regulate all "hydraulic fracturing" – fracking – on federal lands based on the potential impacts of fracking to underground drinking water sources, despite the fact that Congress's Energy Policy Act lets states, not federal agencies, decide how best to regulate fracking's potential groundwater imp ...
Epic Systems, Inc. v. Lewis
Victory! Supreme Court rules for freedom of contract
Under its terms of employment, Epic Systems, Inc. required that employees agree to handle any workplace dispute individually. This meant waiving any future class-action or collective arbitration—a freedom of contract protected by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Lower courts disagreed, saying the company's one-on-one arbitration agreement and c ...